If the world ever "returns to the grounds of faith" (last paragraph) then the result will not be a better, more democratic, more community-minded society but one which has lost these values, supplanted by:
= Illogical, faith-based "reasoning",
= Sectarian, as against humanitarian values, and
= Verbose, contorted, confused and confusing nonsensical appeals to authority such as in this article. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority.)

Is it only me who cannot see links between Peter Sellick's starting premises and his conclusions?

An interesting article, deserving discussion. Not sure where to start, though, it contains so many breezy, self-referential generalizations.

Here's just one thought.

"This meant that for many the transcendent could not exist and our view of the world and us in it was reduced to economics, will, power, money and consumption."

That is a most contentious statement. These were not the only identifiable characteristics of the post-transcendent world. It became absolutely saturated with previously understated elements, primarily a newly-revived thirst for knowledge, an occupation that was previously confined to scholars and intellectuals. The idea that man was in fact unsupported by any form of deity fed widespread curiosity and enquiry, coupled with an extremely healthy tendency to iconoclasm.

The world was able to go past the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent deity that guided human actions, and to start taking some personal responsibility for such everyday realities as war, pestilence, famine etc.

Being able to move on from the conviction that everything was somehow "God's will" was a form of adolescence for the human race. And as we all know, adolescence has always been a very risky business, and the results not uniformly beneficial.

But few who have survived it would willingly return to their previous state of dependence and ignorance.

Thank you Peter.

While modernity with its digital age is today's plague, the whole of the still-written historical age is the story of Egyptian-like ten plagues, one after the next. While we cannot yet imagine the next one to come, there is no reason to believe that it will be better (as per the naive "new-age" movement).

Brutality and mass-brutality were also rampant in the classical age and in the middle ages - not just in the 20th century. In the big scheme of things, these divisions are insignificant in comparison with the totality of the dark age of strife we live in - the Kali Yuga.

While we are here, while there is no escape from this age, we can still often create islands of peace by going against the flow and following the principles of religion instead. Some of the tools to be able to do that in our dark times, you have just denigrated as false gods: human rights, freedom of choice and speech and democracy.

Religion in this dark age is in the minority. Religion has been in the minority throughout the historical period, including those divisions of time when its semblance was formally imposed on the masses. Yet, God never forsakes His devotees and by His grace, while the use of individual freedoms can lead to decadence when held by worldly persons, it can also lead to the divine when the reigns of the mind are held by the devotees of God.

Let us therefore not discard, but cherish and embrace those gifts of God such as human rights and freedom of choice, given specially for our age.

"It is just that all worship should be considered as one. We look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road; but this discussion is rather for persons at ease, we offer now prayers, not conflict."

Roman Senator Symmachus' speech in support of pagan tolerance against increasing Christian totalitarianism.

'Our time is marked by the almost complete loss of its founding ethos in Christianity.'
I certainly hope so.

If there were indeed all all powerful all seeing God, one of his/her first tasks would be to influence who and where He/She could, to have them, roll out inviolable irrevocable human rights, to the far flung corners of a shrinking planet.
Human rights are hardly ever worshiped, except by those who've never really had them?
Peter does come up with some interesting conclusions, and this one is way out there!
Now where was I, oh yes,I know, I was half way through my morning prayer to holy mother, Free speech!
Followed by my catechism; you know, who made me?
Why basic human rights made me to know love and serve them as long as both of, me and my shadow. shall live!
And chanted daily, while I dance under the stars and moon, or a noonday street lamp; and even allow myself to cast the occasional, hugely comforting shadow!
HA HA HA! Rhrosty.

"From now on human thought would be divided between two imaginaries, the analogical imaginary that could understand, for example that Jesus was the son of God and the other objective, causal imaginary that could make no sense of such a statement."

I love to see you wriggling on the hook of rationality, Peter; it gives me hope that one day soon you will join us on dry land. This is one of the nicest ways of saying 'religion is complete and utter nonsense' that it has ever been my privilege to read.