The great gift that the Enlightenment gave to society was the separation of the Church and State. This political change ultimately leads to relatism because the State no longer controls the religious mind of the public. Once people are free to choose their own brand of religion they will choose the one that is the most convenient to them based on their own understanding, conscience, and happiness.

So, why are there many brands of religion? Because no particular brand can point to definitive proof to back up its theology. The lack of hardcore evidence is tantamount across all the major religions including monotheism and the mystic religions.

Those people that demand definitive proof and hardcore evidence end up as atheists and agnostics. Within this group there is no relatism because they base their knowledge on the tangible and the physical. That is, scientific experiment. This comparatively small group has most benefitted from the Enlightenment and the resultant political separation of the Church and the State because they are no longer hounded or persecuted by the various theocratic bureaucracies.

An interesting and relevant quote from Darwin turned up in to-day’s Sydney Morning Herald, in an article by Don Watson, it is: “It appears to me that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follows from the advance of science”.

It is so in this discussion. The attempt, by those who think that words should relate to things and the relation between them, to guide the discussion towards something meaningful in our life sinks in the face of a fluff of emotionally based concepts which have no other base than the internal workings of the individual brains.

For Darwin's public read Sells and his sympathisers.

Sterile entertainment.

You have some interesting things to say here Peter, Most of it is based on your myopic Catholic dogma but you, of course, have a right to express it. What bothers me is that these discussions are mostly relegated to forums such as this and are not argued on a wider stage. Take 'Compass' on the ABC. We are subjected to the philosophical meanderings of football players and other such theological giants but have almost no discussion about the big questions such as these. Secular rationalists seem to be completely banned from appearing in shows like this and therefore have little opportunity to discuss the issues that occupy your attention. An article in yesterday's Melbourne 'Age' had a lengthy discussion about the merits (or lack of) of the 'Da Vinci Code' movie with input from a variety of religious believers. Not a word from a secular rationalist.
If you want to debate theology with secular rationalists then please suggest to the ABC and other madia that they stop ignoring us.

Ooooops! Sorry Peter.

"....He has held various positions in the Uniting and Anglican churches, and several Western Australian universities."

I called you a Catholic. My mistake. Some of us secular rationalists find the distinction a little difficult to comprehend. I could have gone to the block for that mistake in Tudor England. Thankfully our secular state will protect me.

Priscillian says: "please suggest to the ABC and other madia that they stop ignoring us"

I agree completely with you, and I have requested the ABC to give time on religious programs to atheists. They claim that existing programs, such as Late night live are the counterweight, to the many religious programs on radio and Tv. What bulldust!!

Maybe this should be the debate: why doesn't the ABC give time to non religious views - could it be fear of their political masters and their minority mates?

So we find ourselves near the end (I hope) of yet another string of posts about my articles. With the exception of DFXK, who demonstrates real thought and consideration of what I have written, we have been treated to the usual blind abuse pretending to be debate. I find that Darwin is held against me, and me a Darwinist who has written on the evolutionary origin of religious thought! I find that I am accused of believing in fairies and such and me a working scientist! Everything I say is sneered at without any intellectual engagement. I think the more vicious posters protest too much. They damage their credibility with their lack of consideration of the articles and their compulsive reiteration of old arguments that miss me completely.

TR the separation between church and state was not instigated in the Enlightenment, it arose initially between David and the Nathan , or perhaps previously between Saul and Samuel and endured during the whole of the following history. Please read some history.

I draw one consolation in all of this and that is I must be getting up some noses if they are willing to spend so much energy trying to refute me. I am glad I am such an irritant.