So true. We live according to meaning whether we are aware of it or not. The atheist is a fundamentalist in believeing there is no God as a believer is in believing there is a God. Both are aggressive in their beliefs because it is a life and death issue. At least the Godly believer has hope but the atheist is doomed to failure because they don't have any hope beyond the present. And this is the basic difference and a hopeful hope is better for living then a hopeless hope. As Billy Graham once said, I win both ways because I live in hope in God which transforms my present and if I am wrong it does not matter, but if I am right then even better.

Oh Dear, The Author seem very confused here. "Modern secular thought contains nothing as profound as this ancient biblical story." What rot modern Secularist myth is the scientific story of how life evolved and how the universe was created, no nothing profound in that.

Confused Kenny :) you said "and how the universe WAS CREATED"..at last..you get it :) even though you don't know it yet.

It's much easier to cling to emptiness which makes no moral demands, than to substance which does.

Smart people (like Author Harold Robbins) can make quite a life for themselves.. sex orgies, drunken binges, parties on yaughts...plenty of booze, women and drug enhanced promiscuity... ok.. fine.. while you are not made aware of the consequences..or are healthy enough to simply deny them.....

but the chickens come home to roost, we reap what we sow, and Robbins did just that. The misery of the end of his life, alone, broken.. an empty shell of a man with nothing but a Christless eternity to look forward to.. (though for him it was just a hopeless oblivion of death)

But...aah...the Good news is that God not only created, but also manifested His person in Christ Jesus. Christmas..

"God so loved the world..that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life" John 3:16

Strange article especially from a highly respected thinker who specialises in European Thought. Perhaps it tells us how shallow and one-dimensional European "thought" really IS.

It dosent really say anything substantial, and is really only a confession or expression of the authors own fence-sitting doubt mind.
The doubt mind that is the common feature of ALL university trained intellectuals, even those who argue for traditional Christian exoteric belief.

It is also the same doubt-mind within which we have all been brought up. It is the mind that permeates every aspect of our so called "culture". It is even structured into our bodies. It is so "natural" and "obvious" to all of us, being the invisible sea (or mind) in which we are all embedded, or more accurately TRAPPED.

He is not arguing for religion and spirituality with any real ESOTERIC depth, but only the usual cartoon based childhood mommy-daddy parental, santa claus, good luck "god".

Such paper thin myth laden "religion" being nowhere near enough for fully grown adults.

These two references describe how the mind of such intellectuals is formed or moulded.

1. http://www.dabase.org/ilchurst.htm
2. http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/asana_of_science/index.html

Reference # 2 is from a book titled The Transmission of Doubt, a book which thoroughly investigates the origins and CULTURAL consequences of the ASANA thus desribed in ref #2.

This reference describes the origins and consequences of the usual shouting match between reductionist scientism and reductionist exoteric religionists and theolgians.

1. http://www.dabase.org/noface.htm

Professor John Gray seems to have read Dawkins with insufficient care. Whilst I am not necessarily a great fan of his extreme materialism (it leaves out linguistic intersubjectivity for starters), to suggest that Dawkins does not account for human free from Darwinian science is clearly false to anyone who has actually read his works. To Dawkins free will is a result of evolution.

Likewise, the author's conclusion that "secular humanists have yet to question their simple creed" is quite erroneous. Debates within secular humanism are extremely significant, from the origins of moral decisions to the number of dimensions the universe truly consists of

The ancient biblical story is in many places the story of racism and brutality that would put Stalin and Pol Pot to shame. Read the exploits of Joshua and even Moses for example. Often the main actors are people who hear voices, almost certainly in their own heads, and in recent times would have been considered candidates for a straight jacket. The New Testament is not a lot better and the way in which the gospels were selected for inclusion in the lead documentation is proof that religion is man made. As Terry Lane once commented all "theology is made up as they go along." Christopher Hitchens points out that, "The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was only announced by the Vatican in 1852 and the dogma of the Assumption in 1951." Dicoveries since about 1930in Africa of fossils several million years old of our forefathers makes the few thousand year history of modern religions of the book look rather puerile. As Robert Ardray stated, "We are risen apes not fallen angels." Thank god!